Airplanes, cats, guns, war, the more than occasional rant about the kleptocracy of President Spanky and his party of treason, the spinelessness of the Democraps and ramblings about anything else that flits through the somewhat offbeat mind of an armed lesbian pinko as she slides down the Razor Blade of Life.Caveat lector.

Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the GroundWho is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

I find it almost laughable that the German Neo-Nazis are blathering about the rule of law. If they got power, it would be "one man, one last vote."

Beyond that, who is going to do the shit jobs in Germany if not for the Muslim immigrants? Germany has the lowest birthrate in the world, very far below the rate needed for a stable population (2.1 children per couple in the West). Without immigration, Germany will wither.

The problem for the Euros (and Japan) is that they do not have a culture which welcomes immigrants. Keeping immigrants isolated in segregated housing areas is a recipe for long-term disaster.

5 comments:

At least the Japanese were smart enough to ban Islam from their country.

I'm thinking the German and Japanese governments should consider a tax on any of their citizens that haven't produced children. Yeah, I know, part of the reason for the low birth rate in the Western nations is the high taxes that result from the pursuit of socialism. It's a built-in nation killer. No way around it, socialism is toxic to large scale human groups (cities/states/countries). The more of it you have, the sooner it kills its host. And, since it always grows, like a cancer, it will eventually kill all groups that play around with it.

Will, with respect, that has to be one of the craziest screeds I've read recently. One could easily argue that better health care and an economic system that brings some measure of prosperity to large numbers of people results in a lowered birth rate. So does educating women, making birth control available and showing them that there are things one can do other than pooping out babies and raising them.

Everything I said is a fact. Except for the suggestion of how to attempt to raise the birth rate in Western/First World countries, of course.

Better health care? I'm not talking about some third world area that has a high mortality rate for kids, and also requires lots of them to help their parents work.What was the birth rate here in, say, '47-'65? You know, baby boomers? Taxes on a family in 1950 were close to zip. Parents could afford lots of kids. When those boomers got to marrying age, not many kids produced. Taxes to support the "Great Society" made it prohibitive. The Pill, and other birth control products, put a dent in it, of course. Then legalized abortion hit. Abortion numbers are far greater than the entire actual influx of illegal aliens, and possibly legal immigrants also, here in the US.

Why would you think that increased prosperity would lower the birth rate?

Of course, greater education of women can have a negative effect on the birth rate, but realize that one of the drivers for them to do so is to raise the income of the family to overcome the effects of much higher taxes. When both men and women work away from home, the number of children drops dramatically. That is directly due to the effects of socialism.

When you combine the costs of socialism and the resulting lack of children, a nation is screwed. Children become a luxury item, that has to compete with other toys. The fact that they require lots of time to raise them properly makes them increasingly rare and correspondingly expensive to indulge in.

When my parents got married in 1950, the average family could afford to buy a house and raise a few kids, on the income of ONE parent. Twenty years later, that was no longer true, and hasn't been since then.

I notice that you haven't mentioned income inequality. There has been a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich over the last forty years. The income of top executives has skyrocketed, while the income of workers has essentially remained flat since Nixon was in office.

Tax rates for the wealthy have fallen to near-zero. The hedge-fund guys claim their pay are investments, so they pay very little on a percentage basis.

You blame that on socialism. The only socialism we have in this country is half-socialism for the rich-- they get to keep their money and the government rescues their big businesses if they fail, which is effectively economic hostage-taking by the rich.

If this were a socialist country, Romney, for one, wouldn't be paying just 14% of his income in taxes.

Rule No. 5: Terms of Service: Political appointees of the Obama and Bush Administrations may not read this blog unless they (i) post a comment confessing same and (ii) acknowledge that both men are war criminals. This blog may not be read by members of the Arizona Legislature.

Violation of this term is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C) and you're off to share a cell with Chris Christie, asswipe.

Rule No. 6: If I wanted you to write a "guest post", I'd ask you. Don't bother asking me to put one up from you. I won't. Start yer own goddamn blog.You Have Been Warned.